Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

Rights are one way in which we can be protected from arbitrary use of power over us. In and of themselves, they aren't necessarily worth too much if we don't experience the material conditions in which to exercise them, but that doesn't make them useless or mean that their absence is irrelevant. I would very certainly rather the UK govt was subject to an international human rights court than not. Throw it away at your peril.
 
Here's a list of judgements involving the UK by the ECHR.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8049/CBP-8049.pdf

The list of upheld judgements is a pretty eclectic mix. The rights of mentally ill people when being detained, for example. The rights of people to have deaths at the hands of security services investigated. The right not to have a caution remain on your criminal record for life. Tenants challenging possession orders. That one's from 2010. All kinds of things really.

Maybe Magnus can point to some that show what he is talking about? I can't see any. Quite the reverse. I'd have thought that tenants facing eviction qualify as a 'downtrodden community'.
 
Well it's not really the personal decision of one person, is it.

The ultimate decision required his signature but there will have been scores of security service people, policy advisors, legal folk, etc..

And of course, the decision has now been upheld by 2 courts and an independent commission.
Well yes it is, he may have been advised to strip her of her citizenship but for all we know he may have been advised the exact opposite but ignored that advice to make a political point.
It doesn't matter what he was advised he didn't have to follow it and couldn't be held accountable.
 
Well yes it is, he may have been advised to strip her of her citizenship but for all we know he may have been advised the exact opposite but ignored that advice to make a political point.
It doesn't matter what he was advised he didn't have to follow it and couldn't be held accountable.

He's been held accountable by both the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
 
1677448219214.jpeg
Grades of citizenship, who can be rendered without rights, to what degree. It’s been done before, as we can see. I’m not sure it’s a good idea for modern Britain.
 
in the process of getting my luxurious dual citizenship recently, i had to get my father's birth certificate and show it at the embassy and there on the original next to place of birth was a stamp that said JEW, just for the ease of reference for the state at the time obvs, so they'd not confuse him with some other level of citizen with a different set of rights. This is just, not a very good idea.
 
Reserving the right to remove citizenship that’s been gained by deception is one thing. That’s not what’s happened here although it’s largely, arguably, why the mechanism to do it exists. If it’s going to be abused because someone deemed undesirable is half this or quarter that, or technically entitled on paper to be something else, that seems like dodgy territory.
 
If it makes bimble feel better, then prior to 2003 deprivation of citizenship was only allowed for naturalised citizens, when it became permissible to apply deprivation of citizenship of British born citizens that can hold dual citizenship.

So the trend seems to be towards a more equal application of the power.
 
If it makes bimble feel better, then prior to 2003 deprivation of citizenship was only allowed for naturalised citizens, when it became permissible to apply deprivation of citizenship of British born citizens that can hold dual citizenship.

So the trend seems to be towards a more equal application of the power.
The fuck you dribbling on about? Idiot.
 
If it makes bimble feel better, then prior to 2003 deprivation of citizenship was only allowed for naturalised citizens, when it became permissible to apply deprivation of citizenship of British born citizens that can hold dual citizenship.

So the trend seems to be towards a more equal application of the power.
It only looks like a more equal application of the power if you're so fucking stupid you don't understand what you're typing
 
That it used to a power limited only to naturalised citizens and then it was extended to some of those born in the UK.

And therefore there is the option to apply it more equally than prior to 2003.

I studied this back in the day, but its all there for you to read up on.
It's all here on this thread. All covered already. Not a new piece of wisdom from you.

There is nothing equal about the new powers and the way they apply to people differently depending purely on their ancestry. This doesn't negate anything bimble has said.
 
It's all here on this thread. All covered already. Not a new piece of wisdom from you.

There is nothing equal about the new powers and the way they apply to people differently depending purely on their ancestry. This doesn't negate anything bimble has said.

A lot of the facts are presented on page one of the thread, age of criminal responsibility etc. Hardly surprising since they have been settled law a long time.

What is surprising is that people think the courts would have reached any other decision, and that you weren’t abusive in your reply.

And my intention wasn’t to negate anything bimble said. Her view is a valid one, just not one likely to be the law anytime soon.
 
Comparisons to Nazi Germany now. I suppose the only surprise is that it’s taken 200 pages.
Maybe you could prepare that civics class to educate kids about the status of their citizenship?

They're not all equal, are they? So how would you go about explaining it?

Let's say you're a teacher at a school in Bethnal Green. Let's say it's the school Shamima Begum attended.
 
Maybe you could prepare that civics class to educate kids about the status of their citizenship?

They're not all equal, are they? So how would you go about explaining it?

Let's say you're a teacher at a school in Bethnal Green. Let's say it's the school Shamima Begum attended.
Why does it have to be at school?
 
How else do you ensure children know their lack of rights?

You could safely save it for secondary school, I think. That way the kids will be old enough to understand how this is all totally fair and reasonable.
Do schools teach people about their rights? It certainly wasn't my experience, and things have become rather more complicated in the period since I left school with the importance of eg data rights and so on. Since people don't seem to be taught how to write essays at school, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if rights were passed over in silence.
 
How else do you ensure children know their lack of rights?

You could safely save it for secondary school, I think. That way the kids will be old enough to understand how this is all totally fair and reasonable.

Well obviously I reject your characterisation as a lack of meaningful rights, and I've already said that culture, esp minority culture, is learned at home and in communities rather than in schools. A lot has been made of the government's failure to stop people joining such groups in the first place and many communities now have deradicalisation/anti-radicalisation programs like Prevent, in Tower Hamlets, which probably already outline the potential consequences of joining proscribed groups and if they don't, they should.

We're not going to agree on this. You think that any difference in what you see as rights is bad. Full stop. I think they are inevitable in a multicultural society and should be managed according to the risks they present in reality. Dual citizenship carries vanishingly minor disadvantages. Among them are the inability to avail oneself of the consular assistance of one nation whilst in the other, and the acceptance that the Home Secretary (or equivalent) of one of those states may remove your status if your presence is deemed to be inconducive to the public good (to wit - the joining of terrorist organisations, thus far). However, the advantages of dual citizenship are often so substantial that people like bimble go to great lengths to procure it and completely disregard the downsides. Your objection is that some people won't know about their dual citizenship, so I say let's tell them. Let's make them aware of the advantages and disadvantages they have. Let's face it, given the publicity around Begum, I'd be very surprised if there are any Bangladeshis in the country who aren't now aware of this.

Let's tell everyone else from all the other js nations like Ireland, Canada, Tunisia, Dominican Republic, Morocco, and many others to varying degrees. Give them and their parents the opportunity to decide which nationalities and rights they want to maintain.
 
Last edited:
Everyone affected by these laws and rulings should be told about it, of course. Particularly children and those who have made no attempt whatever to obtain dual nationality.

Hence the need to teach this in school. Like PM, I wasn't taught anything like a Civics class in school. I've no idea if these things are taught now. They're standard fare in many countries. Should be here. You think everyone is going to think this is all fair and dandy? You don't, do you? You know full well that being told your citizenship isn't worth as much as that of others due to your heritage is going to fuck people off. If they were already feeling alienated, this is simply going to reinforce those feelings. I think you badly underestimate the damage the UK government is causing with these actions. Aside from the manifest injustice, their current policies are deeply stupid and self-defeating.
 
Back
Top Bottom